note
sundialsvc4
<p>
Definitely naive. &nbsp; Honest, I do <u>not</u> &ldquo;anything personal&rdquo; when I say that ... <i>(a)</i> this project was and always has been &ldquo;an abstract exercise in programming-language design,&rdquo; and <i>(b)</i> that it missed-the-boat almost from the beginning by being unable to <u>standardize</u> (and, importantly, to <u>own</u>) its runtime foundation. &nbsp; (It frankly looks to me like there were &ldquo;lots of committees and no decisions;&rdquo; that it&rsquo;s been that way for a decade; that it&rsquo;s <em>still</em> that way.)
</p><p>
Let&rsquo;s say, not-too hypothetically, that I own a company whose star client budgets $4+ million a year to keep in 24/7/365 operation a system that <em>runs</em> their warehouse, as well as another system which once-an-hour rebalances the inventory demand projections which determine which product mix is shipped to what store through all of its warehouses. &nbsp; <u>All</u> of which runs right-now on Perl-5, so <em>&ldquo;That is</em> The Bar.&rdquo; &nbsp; And yet, here you are seemingly ecstatic that this Parrot thing runs <em>40(!) times <u>slower</u></em> than the well-known pig that runs Java?!
</p><p>
I&rsquo;ve made the comment before: &nbsp; a worthy-successor to Perl-5 must be driven by actual developer-demand (not an abstract notion of what would be Kewel ...), must be fully and provably backward compatible with the now-vast installed base, and in every way must assuage the overwhelming deal-breaker consideration of <em>business risk.</em>
</p><p>
If you &ldquo;take it personally,&rdquo; you&rsquo;re taking my comment the wrong way. &nbsp; This is <em>pure business.</em> &nbsp; <u>B</u>illions of dollars of it.
</p>
1047676
1048048